Bombay High Court

Jsw Steel Coated Products Ltd., Nagpur ... vs Shri. Rajesh S/O. Gajananrao Nagulwar on 18 August, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:8109


                    wp1016.2025.odt                                                    1/7


                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                                      WRIT PETITION NO.1016 OF 2025


                    1.           JSW Steel Coated Products Ltd.
                                 10/1, MIDC, Kalmeshwar,
                                 District : Nagpur - 441 501
                                 Through its Senior Manager,
                                 Shri Shashwat Prakash Kaushik

                    2.           M/s Prabhuram & Bichare,
                                 acting through its Proprietor
                                 Shri Prabhakar Ganpat Vichare,
                                 Parekh Shopping Centre,
                                 Navapur Road, Bhoisor,
                                 Tah. And Dist. Palghar - 401 404 :    PETITIONERS
                                 ...VERSUS...

                                 Shri Rajesh S/o Gajananrao Nagulwar,
                                 Aged about 45 years, Occ: Service,
                                 R/o Ganjipeth, Behind Tata Parsi School,
                                 Gandhi Chowk, Nagpur-440 018.
                                 Mobile No.9767280930.             :   RESPONDENT

                    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                    Mr.S.N.Kumar, Advocate for Petitioners.
                    Mr. S.A.Mohta, Advocate for Respondent.
                    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                    CORAM         :               PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
                    RESERVED ON   :               29th July, 2025.
                    PRONOUNCED ON :               18th AUGUST, 2025.

                    ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally by consent of the parties.

2. The petitioners take exception to the order dated

07.12.2024 passed by the First Labour Court, Nagpur, allowing the

application for condonation of delay in filing application for review of

the Award passed by the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) Case

No.3/2017.

3. The petitioner no.1 is a company engaged in processing of

steel material and the petitioner no.2 is a Contractor registered under

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, who has

undertaken the works of the petitioner no.1-Company. The

respondent, who was employee of the petitioner no.2 claimed himself

to be employee of the petitioner no.1 and on account of termination of

the services of employee, proceedings were initiated before

Additional Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur, who referred the dispute

for adjudication to the Labour Court. The Reference (IDA) Case

No.3/2017 was decided on merits holding thereby that the

respondent was not entitled for reinstatement in service. The

employee then filed Review Application No.01/2023 seeking to review

the Award passed by the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) case

No.03/2017 which was accompanied with an application for

condonation of delay of 549 days in filing the review application. The

petitioners filed reply to the application for condonation of delay,

categorically raising an objection about maintainability of the

condonation of delay application since the review application against

the award of Labour Court is not maintainable in absence of any

power of review under the Industrial Disputes Act. By an order dated

07.12.2024, the Labour Court allowed the application for condonation

of delay. This order is subject matter of challenge in the instant writ

petition.

4. Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, primarily

submitted that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and

therefore, unsustainable in law. He vehemently submitted that in

absence of any power of review with the Labour Court, there was no

question of entertaining any application for condonation of delay. He,

therefore, submitted that the impugned order although considers the

aspect of sufficiency of cause for delay, however, since the issue of

maintainability of review application itself goes to the root of the

matter, the order condoning delay is without jurisdiction. In support

of his submissions, he relies upon the judgment of the coordinate

bench of this Court in Sudhir Janardhan Desai Vs. Hyphosphite and

Co. and others reported in 2004 (4) Mh.L.J. 223, to buttress his

submissions that there is no power either express or implied in the Act

or Rules permitting the Labour Court to exercise powers of Review.

He adverts attention of this Court to paragraph no. 6 of this judgment,

which is reproduced below:

"6.The Labour Court is a creature of the statute i.e. the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, whatever powers are to be exercised by the Labour Court are circumscribed by the powers conferred on it by the statute. The Labour Court cannot exceed such powers. On a perusal of the Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder, there is no express power conferred on the Labour Court for reviewing its own order neither is there any implied power. As held in the case of Patel Narshi Thakershi (supra), the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law, either specifically or by necessary implication. There is no provision in the Industrial Disputes Act or the Rules framed thereunder, conferring such a power specifically or by necessary implication on the Labour Court. The Labour Court has been empowered under the Industrial Disputes Act to adjudicate references relating to matters falling within the Second Schedule of the Act. It can compute any amount or benefits which can be computed in terms of money, accruing to a workman. The Labour Court is vested with the power for setting aside as ex-parte order or award. But there is no power of review conferred on it at all".

5. Per contra, opposing the writ petition, Mr. Mohta

vehemently submitted that the application for condonation of delay

was required to be considered independently on the strength of

contentions demonstrating sufficient cause for delay. He submitted

that while deciding the application for condonation of delay, the Court

is not required to go into merits of the matter and the issue as to

whether the Labour Court has powers of review needs to be

considered only at the stage when the review application shall come

up for consideration. He submitted that the Labour Court has given

due consideration to this aspect and by considering the sufficient

cause for condonation of delay of 459 days, the impugned order is

rightly passed.

6. Rival contentions thus fall for my consideration.

7. The controversy in the matter is mainly focused on the

issue about legality in entertaining the application for condonation of

delay in filing review application in absence of any powers of review

with the Labour Court. There is no dispute that there is no express

power conferred on the Labour Court to review its award. In view of

the judgment referred above, the position of law is clear that the

powers of review cannot be inferred. The powers of the Labour Court

are circumscribed by the powers conferred on it by the statute and the

power of review is not an inherent power therein.

8. Although, there is no quarrel with the proposition that

while entertaining an application for condonation of delay, the Court

is not required to go into merits of the matter, however, it is equally

crucial to ascertain whether the proceedings sought to be initiated are

maintainable in law. In the instant case, the impugned order is passed

by the Labour Court by observing that the issue about maintainability

of review application requires fullfledged arguments of both the

parties and on this pretext the Court proceeded to condone the delay.

However, the crucial issue about maintainability of review application

before the Labour Court cannot be ignored. It is beneficial to refer at

this stage to a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the

matter of Nivruti G.Ahire Vs. State of Maharashtra and others

reported in 2007 SCC Online Bom 492, in which while dealing with

an identical issue, the Division Bench has categorically held that if the

main application for review is itself not maintainable in law, question

of condonation of delay in filing such an application would not arise

at all. The observations of the Division Bench as reflected in para 15

are reproduced below:-

"15. In order to entertain an application for condonation of delay, the appeal or the application in respect of which there has been delay on the part of the applicant, and the condonation of which is sought for, the same must be maintainable in law. If the main application for review is itself not maintainable in law, question of condonation of delay in filing such an application would not arise at all. In the case in hand, admittedly, the applicant had preferred the S.L.P. and the same was rejected by the Apex Court and only thereafter the applicant thought of filing the present review application".

9. As such, in view of the position of law as elucidated by the

Division Bench in the matter referred above, the impugned order

condoning the delay in filing review application, cannot be sustained.

Although, it is not disputed that the Industrial Disputes Act is a social

welfare legislation and further that a lenient view is required while

condonation of delay in the matter of an employee, the position of law

as laid down by the Division Bench in the above referred matter

cannot be ignored and has to be applied in the instant matter and as

such the writ petition succeeds.

10. The impugned order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the

Labour Court in Misc. Application IDA (Review) case No.01/2023 is

quashed and set aside. The Misc. Application IDA (Review) case